Is it really a lot though? Let's say that 1/2 of the shots you get from an analog disposable camera are throwaways. That's generous, imo. I haven't bought one in a while, but the disposable cameras are generally $5-10? With this, you can go on a whole vacation and come back with 20 shots that you know are good quality for $20. With the current method, you have to shoot 100 shots and hope a few come out nice. Assuming developing costs are the same, and if you need 2-3x the analog prints to get the same amount of usable shots, the 'disposable' digital becomes cheaper in the long run.
Re:Statistics should be taken by Area, not Populat
on
Broadband Majority in US
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
People don't move to rural areas to get away from the technology, they go there to get away from the cities.
Do you know what a side effect of getting away from the cities is? Getting away from the technology. The cost for installing broadband is dependent more on the area covered than the people covered. It's trivial to run cable to 30 houses when they're all on the same block. When they're each 0.5 mi away from each other, it's not so easy, and the return on investment goes to the shitter.
When you move out of densely populated areas, you should not expect the same level of service, be it sewers, trash collection, police and fire protection, utility service, transportation options, retail access, etc. You pay lower property taxes out there for a reason.
I wonder if any of the participants reside in places like Alaska, or South Dakota. Just seems like those places amongst many aren't likely to have vast options on their method of connecting to the net.
There's something else about those places too... oh, right! No one lives there! Okay, sure, people do, but the population density is vastly lower than other parts of the country. So even if everyone uses dialup in these areas, they will only have a small effect on the overall numbers.
Erm, not really. The neocons are in firm control of the GOP. The greens are not anywhere near in control of the Democratic Party. While there has been a resurgence in the liberal/progressive wing of the party, there are still a lot of moderates in the leadership. If you vote for Bush, you're voting for a neocon agenda. If you vote for Kerry, you're voting for a moderate liberal agenda.
Despite the existence of this utility, it is the fact that it is 'hidden'...
How is it any more 'open' or 'hidden' than linux? Go to a shell, type netstat. Now, which OS did I just give the directions for?
Both Linux and Windows assume that the sysadmin has an understanding of the system and a knowledge of the tools available. The problem is that many Windows users do not have that understanding.
FYI it's people like you that are part of the cause the tailgating, passing on the right, etc. If you would just move to the right and let people who want to go faster go by, part of the problem would dissipate. Of course, this doesn't always work, such as in high volume areas, but it's more often than not that when I am confronted with 3 lanes of solid cars, it's caused by people going the speed limit or under in each lane, with a stretch of open road ahead of them.
Also, at least in New Jersey, you are driving illegally if you fail to yield to a vehicle that wishes to pass.
And as far as equating ad-blockers with stealing content from the website, that's absolute baloney.
The english language simply doesn't have the right words to provide the nuance required here. If you block ads, you are taking the content without paying the content provider. That certainly falls under the definition of 'steal'. However, as no physical property is taken, some people claim this is not stealing, blah blah blah. How about instead of calling it stealing, we'll just call it "being a selfish prick," is that okay with you?
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Ads are not always about buying something. They are also about raising brand awareness. If you see a Sony ad, you may not run out and buy a DVD player. But when you buy a DVD player in 6 months, that Sony ad is in your head. It still may not get you to buy a Sony DVD player. Sony won't be dismayed about this. Ads are not meant to return a 100% buy rate, and marketers know this. However, without an ad, you may never have known the brand existed. Given a choice between otherwise equal brands, some you have seen ads of, and some you have never heard of, which are you more likely to buy from?
So, what the apologists are REALLY saying is not "You'd better leave the ads, or the site will go down" but "You'd better buy the products advertised, or the site will go down."
I don't recall saying that, or seeing any others who agree with me saying that. Please don't put words in people's mouths.
The argument is not about whether or not you buy something. The content provider is providing the content. In the case of slashdot, that is a summary, a few links, and a discussion area. In order to use that content, you are expected to pay a small fee: allow an ad to be displayed at the top of the page. Take away that ad, and yes, you are effectively a thief. Would you grab newspapers off the newsstand and run away? Or take more than one paper when using a vending machine? Why, or why not?
He didn't say it was your job to come up with a business model for every site. He merely challenged you on the example. You happen to have an extremely, extremely unique counterexample that is unrelated to the original example. The original example, imo, represents most web sites.
To say, "that's a shitty business model, I won't view the ads" is a silly, intellectually dishonest excuse, and the GP called you on it.
No. Keep it up. As the great George Costanza says, "We're living in a society here! There are rules!" If the whole world turned into the swine on this thread, would advertising just stop? Somehow I doubt it. They're only out for their own selfishness and paltry ideals: They can't stand the sight of an ad to fund the content that they so desire. So many people have lost the idea of society. We all make small sacrifices, for the greater good. Now, some of you are going to say "ads? How the *@$ are ads a part of society?" Well, they aren't really. It's the selfish attitude, which has crept into every part of life and society, that is destroying common decency. So many people find the idea of paying taxes repulsive, but turn around and use the products of those tax dollars without a second thought. It's the same thing here. Simple minded people want something for nothing, and think that they deserve it.
Great, an Insightful post that misunderstands advertising and makes astounding logical errors. Will wonders never cease? Okay, enough of this wankery.
When you buy a magazine, watch TV, listen to the radio, you are not forced to look at the ads, you are not forced to listen to the ads, you are not forced to watch the ads, and you are certainly not forced to buy anything. However, the ads are still there, put there by the content provider. Now, I don't share the GP opinion that banner ads should be randomly clicked on, but I do feel that blocking ads that are presented with content is not fair to the provider. When you block the ads, you are effectively stealing the content (insert semantic argument on the meaning of 'stealing'). Your payment for this content, on this very page, is that ad at the top.
I consider pop-ups to fall outside of this definition. A pop-up wishes to create a new browser window. However, I have not authorized the content provider to do that. I have only given them one window to work with, and that's what they'll get. Whatever they want to put there is fine. Everywhere else on my computer is mine.
IMO, the main problem with advertising is that advetisers are simply too hardcore. They don't know where to stop. However, we can draw the line. Remember earlier this year when MLB said they were going to have ads on the bases at one game? They scrapped the plan due to public opinion. If content providers don't know that the advertisments they use are annoying, they will keep using them. Blocking the ads doesn't convey the message to the content provider, it only helps yourself.
McDonalds, like many well-established businesses, uses advertising not to tell you that they exist, but to tell you about their new products and promotions. For example, every McDonalds commercial I see (which is not much since I've spent the last week watching beautiful commercial-free C-SPAN) is promoting their new salads. Last time I went to a McDonalds, when I was on the road, my friend said "Oh, I wanted to try one of those new salads they have," and she did.
Just because it doesn't work on you doesn't mean that it doesn't work on everyone else.
I would imagine anyone with such a device, like anyone else with a major medical condition, would wear a medic alert bracelet to notify people of the condition in an emergency.
If you look at the internal surface of a major vein you will notice that it it is uneven. It does not allow blood to flow back and this works properly only with a pulse flow. It will not work properly with a constant flow.
But a flowback prevention device is only needed because of the pulsed flow. Without flowback prevention, blood could never reach the head as it would keep running back down the arteries as the heart cycled. As long as a continuous flow is of sufficient pressure, this problem is eliminated, and the need for flowback prevention is removed.
I'm surprised that worked. Most cell phone companies put stickers in the phone that will change color if it comes in contact with water, and most cell phone contracts do not cover water damage.
Do you mean to argue it is an inalienable right to have a voter machine printed paper record of how you voted? Those are the kinds of rights and freedoms that you have in America. Not the right to do whatever you want. In fact, no one is stopping you from making a paper record of how you voted, or announcing to all of us how you voted. What is being argued against here is the use of a take-home receipt. What restriction on your freedom is it if the machine does not print a receipt for you to take home? (Leaving the re-count problem aside as I am not arguing against voter-verified receipts, but take-home receipts.) Do you at least understand the argument against take-home receipts? To simply say any coercion is illegal is silly. Lots of things are illegal, and people get away with them all the time. In fact, using our legal system of innocent until proven guilty, it would be hard to prove voter coercion. I don't think it would become a widespread problem, but a take-home receipt opens up the possibility for coercion, offers no benefits, and gives no additional freedom. I hope you understand that the veracity of our voting system cannot be compromised in any way, and that is the priority here. Florida 2000 was bad enough.
I'd also add in that if you (in the general) are receiving federal handouts you should not be able to vote.
Others already slammed you on this, but I couldn't help joining in.
Everyone is receiving federal handouts, it's just that the poor get more explicit handouts, since they don't have many other ways to get assistance. People with money don't get money, they get tax refunds, tax credits, tax exemptions, federally assisted loans, federal disaster insurance, student aid, small business aid, etc. What's a poor person going to do with tax exemptions when they don't pay tax? Or a federally assisted homeowners loan that they can't afford?
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really a lot though? Let's say that 1/2 of the shots you get from an analog disposable camera are throwaways. That's generous, imo. I haven't bought one in a while, but the disposable cameras are generally $5-10? With this, you can go on a whole vacation and come back with 20 shots that you know are good quality for $20. With the current method, you have to shoot 100 shots and hope a few come out nice. Assuming developing costs are the same, and if you need 2-3x the analog prints to get the same amount of usable shots, the 'disposable' digital becomes cheaper in the long run.
People don't move to rural areas to get away from the technology, they go there to get away from the cities.
Do you know what a side effect of getting away from the cities is? Getting away from the technology. The cost for installing broadband is dependent more on the area covered than the people covered. It's trivial to run cable to 30 houses when they're all on the same block. When they're each 0.5 mi away from each other, it's not so easy, and the return on investment goes to the shitter.
When you move out of densely populated areas, you should not expect the same level of service, be it sewers, trash collection, police and fire protection, utility service, transportation options, retail access, etc. You pay lower property taxes out there for a reason.
I wonder if any of the participants reside in places like Alaska, or South Dakota. Just seems like those places amongst many aren't likely to have vast options on their method of connecting to the net.
There's something else about those places too... oh, right! No one lives there! Okay, sure, people do, but the population density is vastly lower than other parts of the country. So even if everyone uses dialup in these areas, they will only have a small effect on the overall numbers.
funny, you dont dispute my assertion that you used a deliberately misleading 'statistic'. that's very indicative of you.
You'll be thinking of "echo y | del /sf %USERPROFILE%\*.*"
/fqs %USERPROFILE%\*
Or, del
yawn.. that 'stat' is based on the past year alone and includes procedural votes, most of which kerry was not present for due to the campaign.
Erm, not really. The neocons are in firm control of the GOP. The greens are not anywhere near in control of the Democratic Party. While there has been a resurgence in the liberal/progressive wing of the party, there are still a lot of moderates in the leadership. If you vote for Bush, you're voting for a neocon agenda. If you vote for Kerry, you're voting for a moderate liberal agenda.
The punks at Kent State got what they deserved.
Disgusting. You believe death was deserved because of.. property damage? Insightful, indeed.
Despite the existence of this utility, it is the fact that it is 'hidden' ...
How is it any more 'open' or 'hidden' than linux? Go to a shell, type netstat. Now, which OS did I just give the directions for?
Both Linux and Windows assume that the sysadmin has an understanding of the system and a knowledge of the tools available. The problem is that many Windows users do not have that understanding.
FYI it's people like you that are part of the cause the tailgating, passing on the right, etc. If you would just move to the right and let people who want to go faster go by, part of the problem would dissipate. Of course, this doesn't always work, such as in high volume areas, but it's more often than not that when I am confronted with 3 lanes of solid cars, it's caused by people going the speed limit or under in each lane, with a stretch of open road ahead of them.
Also, at least in New Jersey, you are driving illegally if you fail to yield to a vehicle that wishes to pass.
We now have the Food and Drug Administration in charge of computer security?
When it relates to medical devices, yes. It falls under no other agency's jurisdiction.
same source.
Which source is that? Google is not a source, it's a search engine.
And as far as equating ad-blockers with stealing content from the website, that's absolute baloney.
The english language simply doesn't have the right words to provide the nuance required here. If you block ads, you are taking the content without paying the content provider. That certainly falls under the definition of 'steal'. However, as no physical property is taken, some people claim this is not stealing, blah blah blah. How about instead of calling it stealing, we'll just call it "being a selfish prick," is that okay with you?
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Ads are not always about buying something. They are also about raising brand awareness. If you see a Sony ad, you may not run out and buy a DVD player. But when you buy a DVD player in 6 months, that Sony ad is in your head. It still may not get you to buy a Sony DVD player. Sony won't be dismayed about this. Ads are not meant to return a 100% buy rate, and marketers know this. However, without an ad, you may never have known the brand existed. Given a choice between otherwise equal brands, some you have seen ads of, and some you have never heard of, which are you more likely to buy from?
So, what the apologists are REALLY saying is not "You'd better leave the ads, or the site will go down" but "You'd better buy the products advertised, or the site will go down."
I don't recall saying that, or seeing any others who agree with me saying that. Please don't put words in people's mouths.
The argument is not about whether or not you buy something. The content provider is providing the content. In the case of slashdot, that is a summary, a few links, and a discussion area. In order to use that content, you are expected to pay a small fee: allow an ad to be displayed at the top of the page. Take away that ad, and yes, you are effectively a thief. Would you grab newspapers off the newsstand and run away? Or take more than one paper when using a vending machine? Why, or why not?
He didn't say it was your job to come up with a business model for every site. He merely challenged you on the example. You happen to have an extremely, extremely unique counterexample that is unrelated to the original example. The original example, imo, represents most web sites.
To say, "that's a shitty business model, I won't view the ads" is a silly, intellectually dishonest excuse, and the GP called you on it.
Hear, hear! A voice of reason!
Am I the only person left..?
No. Keep it up. As the great George Costanza says, "We're living in a society here! There are rules!" If the whole world turned into the swine on this thread, would advertising just stop? Somehow I doubt it. They're only out for their own selfishness and paltry ideals: They can't stand the sight of an ad to fund the content that they so desire. So many people have lost the idea of society. We all make small sacrifices, for the greater good. Now, some of you are going to say "ads? How the *@$ are ads a part of society?" Well, they aren't really. It's the selfish attitude, which has crept into every part of life and society, that is destroying common decency. So many people find the idea of paying taxes repulsive, but turn around and use the products of those tax dollars without a second thought. It's the same thing here. Simple minded people want something for nothing, and think that they deserve it.
Great, an Insightful post that misunderstands advertising and makes astounding logical errors. Will wonders never cease? Okay, enough of this wankery.
When you buy a magazine, watch TV, listen to the radio, you are not forced to look at the ads, you are not forced to listen to the ads, you are not forced to watch the ads, and you are certainly not forced to buy anything. However, the ads are still there, put there by the content provider. Now, I don't share the GP opinion that banner ads should be randomly clicked on, but I do feel that blocking ads that are presented with content is not fair to the provider. When you block the ads, you are effectively stealing the content (insert semantic argument on the meaning of 'stealing'). Your payment for this content, on this very page, is that ad at the top.
I consider pop-ups to fall outside of this definition. A pop-up wishes to create a new browser window. However, I have not authorized the content provider to do that. I have only given them one window to work with, and that's what they'll get. Whatever they want to put there is fine. Everywhere else on my computer is mine.
IMO, the main problem with advertising is that advetisers are simply too hardcore. They don't know where to stop. However, we can draw the line. Remember earlier this year when MLB said they were going to have ads on the bases at one game? They scrapped the plan due to public opinion. If content providers don't know that the advertisments they use are annoying, they will keep using them. Blocking the ads doesn't convey the message to the content provider, it only helps yourself.
McDonalds, like many well-established businesses, uses advertising not to tell you that they exist, but to tell you about their new products and promotions. For example, every McDonalds commercial I see (which is not much since I've spent the last week watching beautiful commercial-free C-SPAN) is promoting their new salads. Last time I went to a McDonalds, when I was on the road, my friend said "Oh, I wanted to try one of those new salads they have," and she did.
Just because it doesn't work on you doesn't mean that it doesn't work on everyone else.
I would imagine anyone with such a device, like anyone else with a major medical condition, would wear a medic alert bracelet to notify people of the condition in an emergency.
If you look at the internal surface of a major vein you will notice that it it is uneven. It does not allow blood to flow back and this works properly only with a pulse flow. It will not work properly with a constant flow.
But a flowback prevention device is only needed because of the pulsed flow. Without flowback prevention, blood could never reach the head as it would keep running back down the arteries as the heart cycled. As long as a continuous flow is of sufficient pressure, this problem is eliminated, and the need for flowback prevention is removed.
I'm surprised that worked. Most cell phone companies put stickers in the phone that will change color if it comes in contact with water, and most cell phone contracts do not cover water damage.
Do you mean to argue it is an inalienable right to have a voter machine printed paper record of how you voted? Those are the kinds of rights and freedoms that you have in America. Not the right to do whatever you want. In fact, no one is stopping you from making a paper record of how you voted, or announcing to all of us how you voted. What is being argued against here is the use of a take-home receipt. What restriction on your freedom is it if the machine does not print a receipt for you to take home? (Leaving the re-count problem aside as I am not arguing against voter-verified receipts, but take-home receipts.) Do you at least understand the argument against take-home receipts? To simply say any coercion is illegal is silly. Lots of things are illegal, and people get away with them all the time. In fact, using our legal system of innocent until proven guilty, it would be hard to prove voter coercion. I don't think it would become a widespread problem, but a take-home receipt opens up the possibility for coercion, offers no benefits, and gives no additional freedom. I hope you understand that the veracity of our voting system cannot be compromised in any way, and that is the priority here. Florida 2000 was bad enough.
I'd also add in that if you (in the general) are receiving federal handouts you should not be able to vote.
Others already slammed you on this, but I couldn't help joining in.
Everyone is receiving federal handouts, it's just that the poor get more explicit handouts, since they don't have many other ways to get assistance. People with money don't get money, they get tax refunds, tax credits, tax exemptions, federally assisted loans, federal disaster insurance, student aid, small business aid, etc. What's a poor person going to do with tax exemptions when they don't pay tax? Or a federally assisted homeowners loan that they can't afford?